MatthewVanitas
Member
Greetings all. Just picked up my stainless New Bearcat today. I'm really looking forward to shooting it, as it's the bonniest little piece of gun. I have small paws, so it fits me well.
Here's my question: why did Ruger retain the half-cock loading feature on the New Bearcat? Every other piece they produce loads with the hamer down, just by flipping down the loading gate. On the Bearcat, you half-cock the hammer, open the gate, load, close gate, and manually decock.
I could see it if they'd kept the half-cock on the Vaquero, as a retro chic nod. But since the Bearcat has no immediate historical relative, and is presumably marketed as a family gun or woodsbumming gun, why keep this feature?
For a gun that is otherwise so easy for a new learner to use, why keep a feature that requires the nail-biting tension inherent in decocking? Having never had a gun whose hammer needed to be manually decocked, even I'm a little apprehensive about it.
So, what's with Ruger? Otherwise, cool little sixgun. -MV
Here's my question: why did Ruger retain the half-cock loading feature on the New Bearcat? Every other piece they produce loads with the hamer down, just by flipping down the loading gate. On the Bearcat, you half-cock the hammer, open the gate, load, close gate, and manually decock.
I could see it if they'd kept the half-cock on the Vaquero, as a retro chic nod. But since the Bearcat has no immediate historical relative, and is presumably marketed as a family gun or woodsbumming gun, why keep this feature?
For a gun that is otherwise so easy for a new learner to use, why keep a feature that requires the nail-biting tension inherent in decocking? Having never had a gun whose hammer needed to be manually decocked, even I'm a little apprehensive about it.
So, what's with Ruger? Otherwise, cool little sixgun. -MV